Expert says poor school districts tax more, get less

AUSTIN — The poorest school districts in Texas tax at a rate that is nearly 8 percent higher than the state’s wealthiest districts but receive 35 percent less in per student funding, potentially contributing to lower standardized tests scores and higher dropout rates, an expert testified Thursday during a much-watched school finance case.

More than 600 public school districts that educate around three-quarters of the state’s 5 million students have sued, claiming the way Texas funds its schools is so inefficient, inequitable and unfair that it violates the state Constitution’s guarantee of a “general diffusion of knowledge.”

Six separate legal challenges have been rolled into a single case being heard by state District Judge John Dietz in Austin.

Wayne Pierce, executive director of the Equity Center, whose mission is to boost state funding for poorer school districts, took the stand for more than six hours. He said the bottom 15 percent of poorer school districts collect an average of $5,581 per student per year in property taxes — compared to $7,535 per student for the top 15 percent of the wealthiest districts statewide.

That works out to a more than $65,000 per-classroom funding deficit each year, he said.

The funding gap persists, Pierce said, even though the top 15 percent of wealthiest districts only collect an average tax rate of $1.02 per $100 of property value, compared to an average of $1.10 collected by the bottom 15 percent of the poorest districts.

Schools in parts of Texas with high property values — or that generate revenue from oil and gas or other natural resource interests — are considered “property-wealthy” compared to districts where home values are low and where no significant source of additional tax revenue is available.

Texas school districts have gone to court repeatedly in recent decades, claiming the Texas Legislature has underfunded them. The latest lawsuits came after lawmakers in 2011 cut $5.4 billion in funding and grant programs from public schools when setting the two-year state budget.

Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office has acknowledged the system is flawed but argues it is not entirely broken, much less unconstitutional.

Pierce said scores on exams like the SAT and ACT were lower on average in property-poor districts than in those that got more funding. The state objected that Pierce was not a testing expert, but Dietz allowed his testimony to continue.

Students from property-wealthy districts also performed better on state tests measuring college-readiness and had lower dropout rates, Pierce said.

Texas’ so-called Robin Hood system requires districts in wealthy areas to turn over a portion of their tax revenue to be distributed to schools in less well-to-do areas. But Pierce said the funding playing field is no longer level and is getting worse every year.

He cited two homes whose property values were within $10 of each other, one in the San Antonio Independent School District area and one in Alamo Heights, a wealthy suburb. Both areas pay identical tax rates, but San Antonio gets about $5,400 annually per student compared to nearly $6,700 per student in Alamo Heights.

Similarly, in suburban Austin, Pierce said that two nearly identically valued homes, one in the Pflugerville Independent School District and one in nearby Eanes ISD saw Eanes students receiving about $1,330 per year more than students in Pflugerville, despite paying the same tax rate.

State law allows school districts to raise their property tax rates up to $1.04 without voter approval and hold elections for permission to raise it to a maximum $1.17. Pierce showed a table indicating what would happen if all school districts statewide taxed at $1.17. It showed that in order to reach the funding levels of their property-wealthy counterparts, poor school districts would have to impose tax rates of $1.95, which would be illegal.

The case is expected to go until January, and then Dietz will rule on the lawsuits. But whatever he decides is likely to be appealed to the state Supreme Court. If its justices side with the plaintiffs, the Legislature will have to rewrite school funding rules.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Money per student is a false measure because no two students are the same and no two school districts are the same.
Is this a ploy to create a state income tax?

School districts are not similar as a dozen eggs. Their population growth/loss varies. The age of their buildings are not the same. The population bubbles in each district are not the same. The number of remedial and special needs kids are not the same. The increase or decrease of their tax bases are not the same. How many millions in bond issues are not the same. And I can tell you that we do not want to redistribute the bond obligations of an irresponsible school board over to responsible school districts.

No matter how the system is re-worked, the districts will still not be the same and if made so, will again, not remain the same. That is why I think a state-wide taxing scheme is lurking behind the scenes.